Forgive me, but later last night, the highly-hilarious comments from Billy inspired me to ponder whether the stated goal in this “consumer” hedge fund was actually to score… bush. That is, Mr. Shkreli eventually placed the entire (if waif-ish) “hedge” fund — in the stock of the company named at right. If nothing else, that was a stupid (non-diversified “consumer”) strategy.
[And why on Earth would giving the involved trader crazily discounted (nearly free) stock — in an unrelated life science company, be a meaningful “incentive” for him to work harder on the “consumer” (strip club) hedge fund? That was the defense’s contention, yesterday, on cross. But he was never an employee, nor had any duties, in the life science company’s management.] Puzzling, that.
At least semi-seriously, in the early light of a fine Wednesday morning here — this will be the open thread for all things trial related today.
Mr. Brafman’s relentless objections — and the resulting lengthy sidebars are both stretching the timeline, and disrupting the prosecution’s narrative flow.
But there is no doubt that the jury is seeing a man who lies about essentially… everything.
And I don’t think it will matter too much to the jury, that the threatened ex-employee was also a Galleon-fund involved whistle-blower/employee/ trader.
I think Mr. Shkreli is highly likely to see a ten year sentence. Five — with day for day credit — if he behaves while locked up.
Onward — should be a[nother] sensational day!